stellaris_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the ranking method (BM25) and the return shape (ranked titles, snippets, source kind, timestamped deep links for video), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, result caps, empty-result behavior, or that only pre-downloaded content is indexed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the corpus scope front-loaded and the return format following. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description helpfully explains what comes back, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It is nearly complete for a simple 3-param search tool, missing only guidance on empty results or how to fall back to live fetching.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the kind filter and limit default/max. The description reinforces the kind semantics by naming both corpora but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (BM25 full-text search) and a precise resource scope: every downloaded wiki page AND every video transcript chunk. This scope statement implicitly separates it from stellaris_video_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the corpus scope — an agent can infer it searches downloaded content, but nothing states when to prefer stellaris_video_search, stellaris_get_page, or stellaris_live_fetch, nor what to do when a page isn't downloaded.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.